FCC questions selective use of jail hospital rules

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Monday questioned whether prison rules could be applied selectively while hearing petitions from inmates at Adiala Jail seeking treatment at private hospitals.

A three-member bench led by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, with Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Aamer Farooq, heard pleas filed by Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Mohammad Ismail Hussain and Owais Altaf.

The prisoners approached the FCC after the Islamabad High Court rejected their requests for treatment at private medical facilities. The petitions were filed following an August 18 Supreme Court order allowing PTI founder Imran Khan to be shifted to Shifa International Hospital for medical examination and treatment.

During the hearing, Justice Najafi questioned whether the jail manual could be used differently for different prisoners. He observed that there should be no discrimination when the relevant prison rules clearly address the transfer of inmates for medical treatment.

Justice Farooq also questioned why the prisoners were specifically seeking private hospitals instead of public facilities such as the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) or Polyclinic Hospital. He referred to Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, which deals with the transfer of prisoners to hospitals and provides for expenses to be borne by the state.

Advocate Akhtar Cheena, representing one of the petitioners, referred to the Supreme Court’s August 18 order concerning Imran Khan. Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan asked why the lawyer had not sought to become a party to the related Supreme Court proceedings, which are scheduled for hearing on September 16.

The counsel maintained that the petitions before the FCC were filed under Article 175E of the Constitution against the Islamabad High Court’s decision. He argued that similar relief had become necessary after the Supreme Court’s order.

One of the petitions maintained that Rule 197 allows a prisoner to be transferred to a civil hospital and argued that the term should not automatically be restricted to public hospitals.

The petitioner also claimed that his client was suffering from severe internal bleeding and had already been taken to a public hospital eight times in two months. The plea expressed concerns about whether adequate medical care could be provided through the public hospital system.

The FCC deferred further proceedings until September 15, noting that the case involved important questions concerning the interpretation of the law.